From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: bug#846: Bug in handling invisible text, and bug in Pmail. Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:36:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Stefan Monnier , 846@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1220323681 30284 80.91.229.12 (2 Sep 2008 02:48:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 02:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: pmr@pajato.com, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, 846@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 02 04:48:55 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KaLws-0001gM-0H for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:48:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42308 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaLvs-0003U1-0k for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:47:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaLvg-0003ND-04 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:47:40 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaLve-0003M9-Cb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:47:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33174 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaLvd-0003M4-V5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:47:37 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:60263) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KaLvc-0006p9-SG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:47:37 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m822lUfC001877; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:47:31 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m822j4pq000543; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:45:04 -0700 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:45:04 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 846 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B.122032301630869 (code B ref -1); Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:45:04 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 2 Sep 2008 02:36:56 +0000 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m822anh1030853 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:36:53 -0700 Original-Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]:58101) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KaLjd-00086D-06 for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:35:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KaLl7-0005ML-Pj for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:36:49 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:59818) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KaLl7-0005MF-I3; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:36:45 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuYEADNDvEhFxJrH/2dsb2JhbACBZbETgWmBBw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,312,1217822400"; d="scan'208";a="26207152" Original-Received: from 69-196-154-199.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.196.154.199]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 01 Sep 2008 22:36:43 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 646AF7FF1; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:36:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Richard M. Stallman's message of "Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:09:53 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:47:39 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:20007 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:22933 Archived-At: >> I think this is a bug in the command loop's handling of invisible >> text -- it should not be the case that C-f C-b changes point. > There are various desirable behaviors w.r.t invisible text, and you > can't have them all at the same time. > I know that better than anyone, and I thought about this a long time. > The command loop used to have code to make sure that there weren't > two different possible point values that would display as the same place. When was that? How did it do that? > It's been with us for a while now > Did you change my decision? What decision? > If so, when did that happen? The relevant piece of code is adjust_point_for_property, which used to make point move over images and char-compositions and which I extended in Emacs-22 (IIRC) to move over invisible text as well (making it automatically somewhat-intangible). > and hasn't caused any real bug report > yet (other than reports such as this one, that is; which complain on > principle rather than because of some real problem > It was a real problem, even though Pmail should not use invisible text > for this. It led to confusing behavior in this case, and it will be > confusing in every case where invisible text is used. Could you re-explain the problem you encountered, then? Re-reading your original bug-report I still can't see where this difference between point before and after C-f C-b introduced a problem. > If people have not complained, maybe it is because the use of > invisible text is rare. What other modes use invisible text? Indeed, most complaints around invisible text have to do with the invisibility itself rather than details of how point is handed in its presence. So invisible text is rare because it's inherently problematic (and should hence be avoided whenever possible). Stefan